Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

INA 135mm f/1.5 Telephoto - testshots.
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:22 pm    Post subject: INA 135mm f/1.5 Telephoto - testshots. Reply with quote

About two weeks ago I had the luck to find and buy this lens.

It was produced from 1967 to 1970 and it was sold under a few names of which Vivitar was the most common.
Although I suppose that "common" is a relative term for a lens of which allegedly only a few hundred were produced.
Others names under which this lens was sold were, as far as I know: INA, Berolina and Carl Meyer.
All have a T2 mount except for the Carl Meyer, which had an M42-mount.

Mine came without the original hood but I use the hood of a Carl Zeiss Jena 180 f:2.8 Sonnar (which is the same as the Sonnar 300mm f/4 hood ).
It has serialnumber 1967109.

Thread about the Vivitar 135mm f/1.5: http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-135mm-f-1-5-t-mount-converted-to-nikon-ai-s-t27558.html

A few pictures of the lens itself:





Last edited by Lucse on Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:04 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I took some rudimentary testshots. Nothing scientific. Just to show it's potential.
First the total scene, all the rest are un-edited 100% JPEG crops.
The weather was dull and overcasted. I used a Sony A7II.

Full scene f/1.5 (resized, clickable):



100% crop at f/1.5:



100% crop at halfstop between f/1.5 and f/2:



100% crop at f/2:



100% crop at f/2.8:



100% crop at f/4:



And last a slightly edited version of the f/1.5-crop:


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plenty usable to me, beside the weight, that's my personal deal-breaker in the last years (both my shoulders ruined by decades of heavy bags)...

Last edited by Ultrapix on Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1

I was always tempted, thanks that this is over for me now...


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nevermind.

Last edited by Lucse on Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:27 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
Plenty usable to me, beside the weight, that's my personal deal-breaker in the last years (both my shoulders ruined by decades of heavy bags)...


That was also my conclusion. It's a 135mm F/1.5 !! after all. I don't know if you can expect pictures taken with such a lens to be a lot sharper. The contrast is not bad either.

But it is a fact that this lens is hardly usable in the real world because of the weight. I had taken three test-shots with it 'freehand' and I had to put the camera down to give my arm some relief.

If you use this lens wide-open it takes a long time to get the focus spot-on and all this time you have to hold up about 3 kg on one hand.
Not a lot of people are able to do that more then a few times in a row I reckon Wink.

OK, one can argue that a tripod can be used but this undermines the purpose of a 135mm lens according to me.
A lens with this focal length just has to be manageable freehand or it's fairly useless.

.... but it's still a nice lens though Smile.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great thread for a great lens ! Thank you ! May we ask what you paid for it ? You're sooo siiiilent about that ... Wink
I read this thread yesterday about the Noritar 1,4.
http://roll.sohu.com/20121207/n359746650.shtml
Even (much) heavier than the Vivitar but looks sharp enough WO too.
The author alleges that these 2 lenses were options presented to the NASA and the Vivitar won.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lucse wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
Plenty usable to me, beside the weight, that's my personal deal-breaker in the last years (both my shoulders ruined by decades of heavy bags)...


That was also my conclusion. It's a 135mm F/1.5 !! after all. I don't know if you can expect pictures taken with such a lens to be a lot sharper. The contrast is not bad either.

But it is a fact that this lens is hardly usable in the real world because of the weight. I had taken three test-shots with it 'freehand' and I had to put the camera down to give my arm some relief.

If you use this lens wide-open it takes a long time to get the focus spot-on and all this time you have to hold up about 3 kg on one hand.
Not a lot of people are able to do that more then a few times in a row I reckon Wink.

OK, one can argue that a tripod can be used but this undermines the purpose of a 135mm lens according to me.
A lens with this focal length just has to be manageable freehand or it's fairly useless.

.... but it's still a nice lens though Smile.



I also was tempted, like Klaus, but not any more. I have a Spiratone 135mm f1.8, which is not quite such a monster as that one, and somehow they managed to get the CA under control, even at f1.8. It also appears that the 1.5 gets pretty abysmal in the corners, is that true. Just for contrast, here is a FF shot with the Spiratone, slightly sharpened by no CA correction



#1


#2


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly Toby! My PORST 1.8/135mm is pretty sufficient and still rather decent in corners! It has some CA of course on OOF areas...Not bad for a lens I paid EUR200 for in like new condition!

Here a few samples (most fully open), full album is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157696060561184









PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kymarto wrote:


I also was tempted, like Klaus, but not any more. I have a Spiratone 135mm f1.8, which is not quite such a monster as that one, and somehow they managed to get the CA under control, even at f1.8. It also appears that the 1.5 gets pretty abysmal in the corners, is that true. Just for contrast, here is a FF shot with the Spiratone, slightly sharpened by no CA correction




The first one is a superb shot but it's not really comparing-material of course (as the picture is edited, re-sized and taken with unknown aperture).

About the pictures taken with my 135mm /1.5: The corners are less sharp at widest aperture, of course, but I would not call them 'abysmal'. These pictures are not the best to judge this either as the hedge is curved.

I have two Sigma XQ Scalematic 135mm f/1.8 and a Kenlock 135mm f/1.8 (which is the same as a Spiratone Plura-Coat).
If I find the time I will make some true comparing-shots Wink. And I might invest some more effort into this then I did with the above test-shots Wink.
I could include the Soligor 135mm f/2 and the Canon FD 135mm f/2 in this as well maybe.


Last edited by Lucse on Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
Exactly Toby! My PORST 1.8/135mm is pretty sufficient and still rather decent in corners! It has some CA of course on OOF areas...Not bad for a lens I paid EUR200 for in like new condition!



Judging the comments I should be happy that I payed even less for my INA Wink.

That first shot is magnificent BTW. The other three hardly can be called sharp according to me, not even at that small size.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phalbert wrote:
Great thread for a great lens ! Thank you ! May we ask what you paid for it ? You're sooo siiiilent about that ... Wink
I read this thread yesterday about the Noritar 1,4.
http://roll.sohu.com/20121207/n359746650.shtml
Even (much) heavier than the Vivitar but looks sharp enough WO too.
The author alleges that these 2 lenses were options presented to the NASA and the Vivitar won.


Thanks for the link to that Noritar thread. Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lucse wrote:
kymarto wrote:


I also was tempted, like Klaus, but not any more. I have a Spiratone 135mm f1.8, which is not quite such a monster as that one, and somehow they managed to get the CA under control, even at f1.8. It also appears that the 1.5 gets pretty abysmal in the corners, is that true. Just for contrast, here is a FF shot with the Spiratone, slightly sharpened by no CA correction




The first one is a superb shot but it's not really comparing-material of course (as the picture is edited, re-sized and taken with unknown aperture).

The corners are less sharp at widest aperture, of course, but I would not call them 'abysmal'. These pictures are not the best to judge this either as the hedge is curved.

I have two Sigma XQ Scalematic 135mm f/1.8 and a Kenlock 135mm f/1.8 (which is the same as a Spiratone Plura-Coat).
If I find the time I will make some true comparing-shots Wink. And I might invest some more effort into this then I did with the above test-shots Wink.
I could include the Soligor 135mm f/2 and the Canon FD 135mm f/2 in this as well maybe.


They were taken wide open. Sorry I do not have the original images here. The lens is not particularly sharp, not even stopped down, but it has quite good contrast and there is no discrepancy between maximum contrast focus point and maximum sharpness focus point. Almost all my other fast vintage lenses show blooming at maximum sharpness. This one not.

As long as we are here, I also have a couple of excellent Bausch & Lomb Super Cinephor projection lenses, 133mm and 166mm f1.8. These are, I believe, double gauss, and also quite good. I usually shoot close, so I don't have examples at a distance, nor do I have the originals of these, but here are a couple of images from those. First two with the 5.25 inch and second two with the 6.5 inch

BTW the 135mm f1.5 sells for well over $1K in even mediocre condition, so you could sell yours and get a couple of really decent lenses for what you would get Wink

#1


#2



#3



#4


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for sharing these pictures.

I am not that fond of those taken with the 133mm due to rather busy and unpleasing bokeh but I definitely like the ones taken with the 166mm.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a few from my copy of the 135/1.5 taken on a brighter day. The first two are wide open, and the third is around F8. (Not hand held - I'm not a masochist)

#1


#2


#3


I have four versions of the third party 135/1.8 lenses (do not have the Zeiss), but haven't shot them all on a day with good light. It's still summer here so maybe I should take the opportunity when I get home in a fortnight. (Side question: are Sigma lenses still third party if they now also make cameras? Zeiss do too.)

This shot is from a Weltblick/Mitake:



These next two are from a Polaris, this lens actually arrived with a damaged element which then cracked. I found a Samigon version of the same lens which I haven't tested wide open yet.




The next two are from a different version of the Spiratone, actually the same as the Soligor version with 5 elements in 3 groups, as seen in this thread: http://forum.mflenses.com/raynox-polaris-135mm-f-1-8-t76153.html.
This is probably my favourite of them all.


#5


These last two are from the Soligor/Tokina 135 F2
#6


#7


I can't locate my samples from the Sigma 1.8 lens with the 77mm filter thread, and shamefully nor do I have any wide open samples with my only other 'fast' 135, the Vivitar S1 135/2.3


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



So you have the first 4 lenses? Nice Smile.